Article: Influence of Precollege Experience on Self-concept Among Community College Students in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
Historically, female and minority student populations have been underrepresented in the field of science, mathematics, and engineering at America’s colleges and universities. In response to the Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (SMET) Education Improvement Act – H.R. 3130, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed a collaborative partnership to address this pressing issue. Given a substantial percentage of minority students and females enrolled in community colleges, this pool of individuals serves as a potential group to be the future scientists.
The objective of this study was to investigate the determinants of community college students’ self-concept. Specifically, students who indicated that their probable major was science, mathematics, or engineering were included in the sample.
To examine the determinants of self-concept among aspirants of science, mathematics, and engineering majors in community colleges, the researchers hypothesized a latent-variable structural equation model by including variables identified in previous research findings as being significantly related to the development of self-concept of students in science, mathematics, and engineering.
This study takes a two-fold conceptual framework which includes the input-environment-outcome model (I-E-O) and differential coursework hypothesis. Developed by Astin (1993), the purpose of the I-E-O model is to access the impact of various environmental experiences by determining whether students grow or change differently under varying environmental conditions. The differential coursework hypothesis investigates the social-psychological aspects of experiences of students (i.e., sex-role socialization, confidence, and attitude) by examining gender difference in their academic performance (Fennema & Sherman, 1977; Maccoby, 1966; Pallas & Alexander, 1983; Sherman, 1980). Nora and Horvath (1990) and Nora and Rendon (1990) added a new dimension to the hypothesis by examining the effects of sociodemographic factors, precollege factors, and attitudinal factors on the differences of academic preparation among community college students. The authors concluded that differences in the effects were explained by students’ gender and ethnicity.
The data for this study were drawn from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) 1996 Freshman Survey, which is sponsored by the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). The sample for the study consists of over 1,602 first-time, full-time students enrolled in public community colleges in fall 1996 who indicated their probable major as biological science, physical science (includes mathematics), or engineering on the survey.
Four latent constructs (Background Characteristics, High School Academic Performance, Attitude toward Science, and Self-concept) formed the measures that were used to test the structural model.
Background Characteristics. Three items”>(a) family income, (b) father’s education, and (c) mother’s education, were used to assess students’ Background Characteristics as identified as “inputs” in the modified I-E-O model.
High School Academic Performance. Four items were used to measure High School Academic Performance, which was conceptualized as the “environment” in the model. The items are: (a) years of high school study in mathematics, (b) years of high school study in physical science, (c) years of high school study in biological science, and (d) high school GPA.
Attitude toward Science. A latent factor had two measures: (a) scientific orientation (i.e., “make a theoretical contribution to science”) and (b) materialism and status (i.e., “being very well off financially and being successful in my own business). Attitude toward Science was identified as “outcome” variable in the model.
Self-concept. Identified as the second “outcome” in the model, self-concept includes six items that were separated into two parcels: cognitive ability and interpersonal/motivation. Representative items of the cognitive ability included, academic and mathematical abilities. Items, such as “public speaking” and “drive to achieve” were included in the interpersonal/motivation.
The results from the structural model analysis in this study provided three important findings. First, concerning the conceptual framework that guided the hypothetical structural model, it is clear that the learning “environment” appears to be a contributing factor for predicting the “outcome” variable, self-concept. More specifically, as defined as the measurement for the learning “environment,” students’ high school academic performance was a positive contributing factor of predicting students’ self-concept in the model.
Second, a critical finding from the model analysis resulted from another conceptual framework used in this study: the notion of the differential coursework hypothesis. Though female students in this study were more academically prepared (higher GPA and more courses taken in biological sciences) than male students, the influence of high school academic performance on predicting self-concept was less than that of overall students (males and females).
Finally, as supported by the literature, the finding of the strong influence of attitude toward science on predicting self-concept among female students indicates the need for support programs and services for them to enhance their attitude toward science.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that community colleges play a significant role in providing access to postsecondary education for traditionally underrepresented student groups in science, mathematics, and engineering. This segment of American higher education continues to play a critical role in educating and training highly skilled science, technology, and engineering workforce in the global marketplace. The future of increasing the representation of women and minorities pursuing baccalaureate degrees rest on the extent to which the transfer function of community colleges facilitates student movement from the two- to four-year college or university.
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics
achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51-71.
Maccoby, E. E. (1966). Sex differences in intellectual function. In E. E. Mccoby (Ed.), The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Nora, A. & Horvath, F. (1990). Structural pattern differences in course enrollment rates among community college students. Research in Higher Education, 31(6), 539-554.
Nora, A., & Rendon, L. (1990). Differences in mathematics and science preparation and participation among community college minority and non-minority students. Community College Review, 18(2), 29-40.
Pallas, A. M., & Alexander, K.L. (1983). Sex differences in quantitative SAT
performance: New evidence on the differential coursework hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 165-182.
Sherman, J. (1980). Mathematics, spatial visualization, and related factors: Changes in girls and boys, grades 8-11. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 476-482.
Author 1: Soko S. Starobin [email protected]
Author 2: Frankie Santos Laanan [email protected]
Article Link: http://www.begellhouse.com/journals/00551c876cc2f027.html